Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add tranhieutt/software_development_department --skill design-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tranhieutt/software_development_departmentWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/design-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/design-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/design-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00046 | $0.00939 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00469 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00188 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
design-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 104 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When this skill is invoked:
-
Read the target design document in full.
-
Read the master CLAUDE.md to understand project context and standards.
-
Read related design documents referenced or implied by the target doc (check
design/docs/for related systems). -
Evaluate against the Design Document Standard checklist:
- Has Overview section (one-paragraph summary)
- Has User Fantasy section (intended feeling)
- Has Detailed Rules section (unambiguous mechanics)
- Has Formulas section (all math defined with variables)
- Has Edge Cases section (unusual situations handled)
- Has Dependencies section (other systems listed)
- Has Tuning Knobs section (configurable values identified)
- Has Acceptance Criteria section (testable success conditions)
-
Check for internal consistency:
- Do the formulas produce values that match the described behavior?
- Do edge cases contradict the main rules?
- Are dependencies bidirectional (does the other system know about this one)?
-
Check for implementability:
- Are the rules precise enough for a programmer to implement without guessing?
- Are there any "hand-wave" sections where details are missing?
- Are performance implications considered?
-
Check for cross-system consistency:
- Does this conflict with any existing mechanic?
- Does this create unintended interactions with other systems?
- Is this consistent with the product's established tone and pillars?
-
Output the review in this format:
## Design Review: [Document Title]
### Completeness: [X/8 sections present]
[List missing sections]
### Consistency Issues
[List any internal or cross-system contradictions]
### Implementability Concerns
[List any vague or unimplementable sections]
### Balance Concerns
[List any obvious balance risks]
### Recommendations
[Prioritized list of improvements]
### Verdict: [APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]
- Contextual next step recommendations:
- If the document being reviewed is
product-concept.mdorproduct-pillars.md:- Check if
design/docs/systems-index.mdexists - If it does NOT exist, add to Recommendations:
"This concept is ready for systems decomposition. Run
/map-systemsto break it down into individual systems with dependencies and priorities, then write per-system PRDs."
- Check if
- If the document is an individual system PRD:
- Check if the systems index references this system
- If verdict is APPROVED: suggest "Update the systems index status for this system to 'Approved'."
- If verdict is NEEDS REVISION or MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest "Update the systems index status for this system to 'In Review'."
- Note: This skill is read-only. The user (or
/design-system) must perform the actual status update in the systems index.
- If the document being reviewed is
Protocol
- Question: Auto-starts from argument (path to design doc)
- Options: Skip — single review path
- Decision: Skip — verdict is advisory
- Draft: Full review shown in conversation only
- Approval: Skip — read-only; this skill never writes files
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago First seen · 104 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 780084d344fa
design-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository tranhieutt/software_development_department (72 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 939 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
flutter-ui
Build Flutter UI from Figma MCP or image input. Scans src for design tokens (colors, sizes, text styles), existing components, and naming conventions before writing a single line of code. Never hard-codes values.
frontend-design
Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Use this skill when the user asks to build web components, pages, artifacts, posters, or applications (examples include websites, landing pages, dashboards, React components, HTML/CSS layouts, or when styling/beautifying any web UI).…
material3-design-system
Comprehensive Material 3 (Material You) design system skill for Jetpack Compose and Compose Multiplatform (KMP). Covers color tokens, typography, shape, 30+ components, adaptive layout, navigation patterns, dynamic color, dark mode, motion/animation, and accessibility. Compose-first — no web or Flutter code.
verify-design
A conditional design-review workflow for websites and other user interfaces. It checks design-system consistency, page structure, and visual polish when the interface has changed.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work (features, products, content, strategy, systems, or behavior changes). Start by classifying what we’re brainstorming, then run thorough one-question-at-a-time discovery, propose 2–3 approaches, and converge on a validated plan/spec.
cinematic-ui
Design and build websites with film-inspired visual systems, director-driven art direction, storyboard-first layout planning, and cinematic motion. Use when the user asks for a cinematic site, movie-style landing page, director-inspired UI, film-noir, sci-fi, romance, thriller, action, animation, or a movie-like…